## Facts

- A nonprofit medical provider treated patients for confirmed or suspected syphilis from January 1999 to March 2004.
- Approximately 663 patients were mistakenly given Bicillin C-R instead of the recommended Bicillin L-A formulation.
- After discovering the error in March 2004, the provider coordinated with public-health authorities to notify the public and attempted to contact affected patients to offer retesting and retreatment.
- Former patients filed a putative class action alleging negligence and related claims based on the improper medication.
- Plaintiffs sought certification of a statewide class of persons who received the incorrect medication.

## Issues

1. Whether medical privacy rights and the physician-patient privilege required an opt-in class rather than the usual opt-out class procedure.
2. Whether the trial court could order disclosure of putative class members’ names and addresses to plaintiffs’ counsel to send class notice, consistent with privacy rights and the physician-patient privilege.
3. Whether a protective order limiting use of medical information sufficiently protected affected patients’ confidentiality.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal denied relief as to class structure, holding the trial court did not err in using an opt-out class mechanism.
- The Court of Appeal granted relief as to disclosure, holding the trial court erred by ordering the provider to disclose putative class members’ names and addresses directly to plaintiffs’ counsel.
- The court directed that the disclosure/notice procedure be modified to protect privacy and privilege while still permitting class notice.

## Legal Principles

- Absent class members in an opt-out class do not waive the physician-patient privilege merely by passive inclusion in the class.
- Significant medical privacy concerns do not, by themselves, require replacing an opt-out class with an opt-in class.
- Courts must balance the need to provide class notice against constitutional and statutory privacy protections; when notice can be provided through less intrusive means, wholesale disclosure of patient identities to opposing counsel is improper.
- Protective orders and anonymization measures may reduce confidentiality risks but do not automatically justify disclosure of identifying information tied to sensitive medical treatment.

## Conclusion

The court allowed an opt-out class procedure in a medical-treatment case but prohibited compelled disclosure of patients’ names and addresses to plaintiffs’ counsel for notice, holding that passive class membership does not waive physician-patient privilege and that notice should be implemented through less intrusive methods that protect medical privacy.


Los Angeles Gay & Lesbian Ctr. v. Superior Ct., 194 Cal. App. 4th 288, 125 Cal. Rptr. 3d 169 (Ct. App. 2011)